Think about what you just said. After reading this, I realize that there truly is no reasoning with you. Your in your own world. If Pauls solo career is pretty empty, the other Beatles solo careers must have been nonexistent.

Quote

- there were good times, and lots of people come to his concerts still. But only coz he was a Beatle.

I go and I prefer to hear his solo stuff compared to the Beatle songs.

Quote

Do you think Flaming Pie or McCartney (1) or Red Rose Speedway or Flowers In The Dirt would have gone anywhere if Paul had NOT been a Beatle?

I'd listen to them, but to answer your question, probably not. The same can be said for 33 1/2, Dark Horse, Extra texture, George Harrison, Walls And Bridges, Mind Games, New York City, etc,,,,. See the pattern here?

Quote

George's Beatle work (playing and some of his songs) are respected, AND some of his solo work is wonderful, and is so valued.

Insert any of the Beatles names into that quote.

Quote

Paul's silly love songs haunt him, that's for sure.

Yes, i'm sure that he's losing sleep everynight by being the most successful of the four and thinking of ways to spend his billion dollars that he's earned with his silly love songs. Get real.

Ydoll, what is this persistence in de-valuing McCartney on a Beatle forum? Empty? Some Circles? I can see the logic behind your statements to a degree but again it's Ydoll's 'anti-Paul' time. In terms of differentiating who will be remembered more in 500yrs time is well off the mark. Well I suppose Lennon did base a lot of his songs on '3 blind mice' if your talking nursery ryhmes. Seriously though, if anyone does remember them and which one 'wrote' them, what Lennon contenders would you have over Pauls?

It never ceases to amaze me that Paul-fans hate any criticism of their man, but they feel free themselves to criticize the other three to some degree or another.

My view is that criticism of any of them is fine - Beatle forum or not.

Remember that Paul himself acknowledges that several of his releases (especially in the 80s) were ill-advised. I agree with Paul on this.

The fact remains that most of Paul's songs are quite lightweight. Some of us wish he would try harder, but we know it's probably too late now. But if you love Paul's lightweight stuff: that's great. But don't hassle me for saying I don't like it!

These are very small circles. Maybe, but they are quality circles. Quality always beats quantity.

Think about what you just said. After reading this, I realize that there truly is no reasoning with you. Your in your own world. If Pauls solo career is pretty empty, the other Beatles solo careers must have been nonexistent.I meant (clearly) empty in terms of quality. Quality always wins.

I go and I prefer to hear his solo stuff compared to the Beatle songs.Really? I don't go because I like to pay for quality.

I'd listen to them, but to answer your question, probably not. The same can be said for 33 1/2, Dark Horse, Extra texture, George Harrison, Walls And Bridges, Mind Games, New York City, etc,,,,. See the pattern here?Interesting that you go for the lower quality works of the others. Answer me this: did Paul come close to All Things Must Pass and JL/POB? Did he even get close to Imagine or Cloud Nine or Living In The Material World? You see, I go for quality. And these albums would certainly have held their own without the Beatle stamp, especially ATMP and JL/POB.

Insert any of the Beatles names into that quote. Except Paul. Sorry, joke.

Yes, i'm sure that he's losing sleep everynight by being the most successful of the four and thinking of ways to spend his billion dollars that he's earned with his silly love songs. Get real.Well, that's the point - I think he may well see that he wasted his gifts on lightweight "silly love songs". As I've said before, that might account for so much of Paul's famous "revisionism". And: I laugh at the way so many Paul fans point to the dollars he has amassed as a sign of his success! Some of us go for quality - and I bet Paul wishes he had too.

Just a small point in the interests of accuracy: it's 33 1/3, not 33 1/2. I like accuracy - it's a quality thing.

I think Paul had a period of time when he was trying to get across that he DID hava a lot of input into the Beatles music and so on. I think he's stopped doing that now. I think he was a little paranoid there for a minute. But JOhn did the same sort of thing when he took all the credit for songs he DID do with Paul. And then he later admitted to lying about it. Paul got a lot of crap there for a while about being fluff. Any man would want to defend themselves. So he didn't do it in the best way. I think he's over it now.

It never ceases to amaze me that Paul-fans hate any criticism of their man, but they feel free themselves to criticize the other three to some degree or another.

My view is that criticism of any of them is fine - Beatle forum or not.

Remember that Paul himself acknowledges that several of his releases (especially in the 80s) were ill-advised. I agree with Paul on this.

The fact remains that most of Paul's songs are quite lightweight. Some of us wish he would try harder, but we know it's probably too late now. But if you love Paul's lightweight stuff: that's great. But don't hassle me for saying I don't like it!

When have I ever slated the other three? You are relentless in critisicising Paul at any opportunity. I said I agreed with some of your points and the 80's were definitely a bad time (I think) for Paul. (Stevie Wonder suffered the same.)

Many bands and performers have continued longer without a fraction of songs to their name. I'm just stating that he is no way as near as bad as you make him out to be. And at any opportunity, I will point that out. Same as I would for all the others. No-one digs at John as you do with Paul.

When have I ever slated the other three? You are relentless in critisicising Paul at any opportunity. I said I agreed with some of your points and the 80's were definitely a bad time (I think) for Paul. (Stevie Wonder suffered the same.)

Many bands and performers have continued longer without a fraction of songs to their name. I'm just stating that he is no way as near as bad as you make him out to be. And at any opportunity, I will point that out. Same as I would for all the others. No-one digs at John as you do with Paul.

First paragraph: Here's a dig of yours at John:Well I suppose Lennon did base a lot of his songs on '3 blind mice' if your talking nursery ryhmes. Not a big slam, maybe - but you've had plenty of goes.

Second Paragraph: Paul's work is largely (not completely) awful, post Beatles. I have stated in other threads often what work of Paul's I value. But I think most of it is lightweight schmaltz. And, guess what: I'm entitled to say it!

No-one digs at John like I do at Paul? Of course not: even John's also largely mediocre solo work puts Paul's to shame. No reason to dig so much at John, plenty at Paul.

Y'doll, Ydoll. I was actually making a point that you seemed to miss. It was by Lennon's own admission that he based songs around nursery rhymes. I was relating to the fact that nursery ryhmes actually stick around for years and years.

It was also no attempt to belittle the Lennon meister. I've been inspired by that notion of '3 blind mice' in songwriting. It's refreshing. I like Lennon a lot. In ways, more so than McCartney. I just happen to be 'Paul' in a band. Dosn't mean I'm a Macca fan.....Guess what? It might mean I'm a Beatle fan and I have a higher voice register than my mate. It's you that makes me sound Macca obsessed when you harp on about how bad Macca is. I'm just balancing the adress of opinion. I think you got me all wrong.

Plenty of goes? About Lennon? What are you on about? When? Where?Your entitled to say what you want of course. It dosn't mean your right. Maybe more grammatically correct, but not right.

Anyways, back to your earlier point. Which Lennon song would you have over Pauls in terms of most remembered? A simple question you have chosen to avoid.

I may well have missed your point. You come on strong, then retreat, I notice, in many discussions. So if I missed your thrust, sorry.

You ask: Which Lennon song would you have over Pauls in terms of most remembered? A simple question you have chosen to avoid.

I haven't really avoided it, but I admit you do have to follow my reasoning through several posts. Here it is in a nutshell: In 500 years, none of anyone's solo stuff will be remembered, except perhaps (a huge perhaps) by academics researching mid-20th century popular music. However, a few Beatle songs will maybe still be in some sort of public consciousness: as I said earlier, they all happen to come from the Lennon brain. Rain, Walrus, Strawberry Fields, Tomorrow Never Knows. But probably not. 500 years is a VERY long time.

However, a few Beatle songs will maybe still be in some sort of public consciousness: as I said earlier, they all happen to come from the Lennon brain. Rain, Walrus, Strawberry Fields, Tomorrow Never Knows. But probably not. 500 years is a VERY long time.

Yesterday and Let It Be will easily outlive the songs mentioned above. Surely, you must see this.

These are very small circles. Maybe, but they are quality circles. Quality always beats quantity.

Quality is an opinion in the eyes of the beholder. As I said above,,,,very small circles. The majority and masses cant all be wrong, can they? I hope your not so full of your self to see this.

Quote

Think about what you just said. After reading this, I realize that there truly is no reasoning with you. Your in your own world. If Pauls solo career is pretty empty, the other Beatles solo careers must have been nonexistent.I meant (clearly) empty in terms of quality. Quality always wins.

My first post pertains to this one also.

Quote

I go and I prefer to hear his solo stuff compared to the Beatle songs.Really? I don't go because I like to pay for quality.

Again, the all mighty Ydolls opinion of quality and personal taste is so far above the majority of the mass population that surely, we all must be wrong.

So stop with these implications that I regard my own view as being above others (or however you'd put it). (Examples: I hope your not so full of your self to see this., and Again, the all mighty Ydolls opinion of quality and personal taste is so far above the majority of the mass population that surely, we all must be wrong. ) You're getting really tedious.